TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses challenge to assessment order & demand notice, stresses procedural compliance, truthfulness.</h1> The court dismissed the petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings and ... Service of assessment order - Petitioner contended that the assessment order dated December 24, 2012 was never served upon him and he has obtained copy of the same only after the recovery notices were issued - Held that:- the notice of demand was sent to the petitioner along with another letter for recovery of the amount and the registers in which the entries were entered were produced before us on December 1, 2014. From the file of the respondents, it is found that there is no application by the petitioner for supply of copy. Also the petitioner could not produce any document showing that he had applied for copy of the order dated December 24, 2012. Therefore, it is unable to accept the statement of the petitioner that he was not aware of the order dated December 24, 2012. This appears to be an afterthought. He could not have filed the copy of the order dated December 24, 2012 unless he had received a copy of the same. Unofficial obtainment of copy of order - Held that:- any such system of unofficially obtaining copies of the assessment orders is not approved. The assessment order as well as the letter dated December 24, 2012 was correctly addressed to the petitioner. They have been entered in the register and shown to have been dispatched. Demand of tax - Petitioner contended that demand runs into more than a crore of rupees and he is a small businessman and would be doomed if he has to pay this amount - Held that:- the stand of the petitioner that he is a poor person is incorrect. On November 27, 2012, the petitioner made a prayer to the Superintendent of Taxes that he would be dumping about 1000 cubic meters of unsized damaged and disputed timbers from the godown in his house since he required the space for the marriage of his daughter. The Superintendent of Taxes deputed certain officials to go to the godown of the petitioner and their report reveals that there was a huge amount of timber and the petitioner was asked to produce valid documents such as invoices, permits in form 26, TP copies, sales memos, etc., to show that these timbers have been validly imported but the petitioner failed to produce any such documents. The assessing authority has valued the timber at ₹ 12,000 per cubic meter whereas the assesse claims that the value is ₹ 3,000 per cubic meter. Even if the valuation of the petitioner is accepted, the value of 1000 cubic meters works out to ₹ 3 crores. If the petitioner can dump wood worth ₹ 3 crores, it is unbelievable that he is a poor person. As the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this court. - Decided against the petitioner Issues:1. Challenge to assessment order and demand notice dated December 24, 2012.2. Allegation of assessment order not served upon the petitioner.3. Petitioner's claim of unofficially obtaining a copy of the assessment order.4. Failure to challenge the order before the appellate authority.5. Petitioner's financial status and claim of being a small businessman.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and demand notice dated December 24, 2012, along with subsequent notices. The court issued notice to the Revenue Department to respond to the petitioner's claim that the assessment order was not served upon him until recovery notices were issued. The petitioner alleged lack of awareness of the order, but the court found no evidence of an application for a copy, indicating the petitioner's knowledge of the order.2. The Revenue Department filed a reply stating that the notice of demand was sent to the petitioner along with a recovery letter, contradicting the petitioner's claim of ignorance about the assessment order. The court noted the proper addressing and dispatch of the order, rejecting the petitioner's assertion of unofficially obtaining a copy. The court emphasized the presumption of regularity in government actions and the importance of challenging orders before the appellate authority.3. The court reviewed the petitioner's conduct during the assessment proceedings, highlighting multiple notices served on the petitioner for hearing dates, which the petitioner either ignored or requested adjournments without valid reasons. The court emphasized the petitioner's duty to participate actively in legal proceedings and not assume deferment of assessments without valid grounds.4. The petitioner's claim of being a small businessman unable to pay the substantial demand amount was dismissed by the court. Evidence revealed the petitioner's involvement in significant financial transactions contradicting his portrayal as financially constrained. The court concluded that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, denying any discretionary relief and dismissing the petition without costs.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings and financial inconsistencies. The judgment highlighted the importance of active participation in legal proceedings, adherence to procedural requirements, and truthfulness in court representations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
